That aside, I laid out the three possibilities of what a “monastic without a monastery” could be. They were:
1.) Those that have been ordained into priestly ranks without ever having spent a day in monastic formation in a monastery and had no choice in accepting the monastic rank?
2.) Those that seem to have monastic titles and ranks afforded them because they are celibate clergy and that is the custom of their particular jurisdiction?
3.) Are monastics that have been asked by their communities and hierarchs to leave the confines of the monastery, to serve the church in the role of missionaries, evangelists, and pastors?
It seems to me that all three of these possibilities are limited to hieromonks (priest monks) when the question is about "monks without monasteries". I have a Greek friend from Romania who was tonsured at age 21 in the year of my birth. By a series of unfortunate circumstances he ended up to no longer have a monastery to live in.
If you read on further in the post that you quoted, it is not restricted to just monastic clergy. Yes, I acknowledge there have been situations that have monastics located outside of the monastery. In America though, from which the scenario of the three above points you quoted, the first two are prevalent while the third is not. In the case of the first two points, yes it has to do with priestly ordination. The first category is those that have had by virtue of their marital status afforded the clerical monastic titles. The second being a prevalent state in one of the larger jurisdictions here in America.
The issue I raise with the first two, is that they were for matters of formality either afforded the monastic titles or made to take upon monasticism while not inclined to responsibilities of that calling. That in itself could lead to a possible disaster to the one made to take on the life and to those that surround them. Neither has embraced the monastic lifestyle willingly, and is what happens in most cases outside of the day of their tonsure in the second category, they have never spent more than a day at a monastery. You are quite right from your understanding that priestly ordination and tonsure are separate sacraments of the Church. As Father David pointed out in his above post, you do have some that are assuming the sacrament of monastic tonsure without the benefit of ever having the sacrament, or possibly entering it under duress when it was not their calling.
Now for the third point. If you ponder what you bolded, you should be able by simple deduction be able to realize that it could include ordained and those that are not ordained. The only word that would be reserved for a priest would be that of pastor. The role of missionaries and evangelists is not reserved for those that are ordained. We have missionaries, cathecists, and evangelists that serve the church today that are not ordained. They should properly formed spiritually and have a way of serving those that they are trying to reach. I have cited above the original missionaries from russia from the Varlaam Monastery. Only a few out of the original eight missionaries were priestmonks. The rest were simply monastics that were still called to be those that help bring forth the gospel and the faith.
What the purpose of the original three points comes from is another thread that was separated off into this thread regarding the loose use of the term "monastics without monasteries" and my trying to clarify just what was meant by this terminology in its service to the American Church now and in the future.
I hope that this clarifies things a little for you.
In IC XC,